God is not a fact, but something some people believe in. Facts are provable. Otherwise they are not facts.
I would not "prove" God at your request for the same reason
If you could prove the existence of God then you would be the first human to do so. So, don;t hold back!
I would not prove my brother had you suggested that he is a hypothesis or pink unicorn.
If you insisted that a pink unicorn is your brother I would it is a hypothesis, and an unlikely one (a) no one has ever seen a unicorn and (b) unicorns are something human minds postulated, and (c) if they did exist, unicorns (as described by human fancy) are ontologically unrelated to humans. The same reasons apply to any deity. Therefore, your argument is sophism.
On your second point, the number of prior universes in a physical cosmology (if any) is irrelevant because: In the absence of space, things cannot exist. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. Both space and time are required for physical causality, e.g. a Big Bang.
How do you know time and space did not exist eternally but God did?
All such physical cosmologies accomplish is to move the goalpost back to a prior universe relying on the pre-existence of, but never explaining the origin of, real space, real time and real physical causality.
How do you explain the origin of God? You don't! You assume he existed eternally. If you can assume that A existed eternally, why not B and C?
In sum, God whose Name is I AM or YHwH (He IS) often translated to "The Lord" cannot be denied.
More sophism. No one denies a name that can be found in a book. However, a name doesn't prove the subject named exists. Your belief or testimony of your belief does not constitute an objective proof.
Or as Physicist once put it (avoiding the obvious theological reference as scientists are wont to do) "existence exists."
In other words, the world exists. That's true. That which exists is. A rock, a gecko, a galaxy...where does "theological" come into this?
On your third point, the "muwth muwth" of Genesis 2:17 is a Hebraism, an intensifying infinite absolute.
Your own link proves you wrong, AG. I intentionally abstained from using similar links in order not to drive the point too harshly. If you go back to your "muwth muwth" (which is not what the text reads, but rather muwth tamuwth*), you explained as the death of the body and the soul.
(*Your source—let me guess: Blue Letter Bible?—gives the root words, not how they appear in the text; diversify your sources before jumping to conclusions..)
Nothing of the sort does the Genesis 2:17 mean. It merely stresses that Adam will die, and it does so in a typical Jewish linguistic style known as Hebraism, which is characterized by a doublet, or repetition, of the verb in order to stress (or intensify) the point being made.
There are no two deaths, one for the soul and one for the body, as you implied when you wrote ("death death") for Adam, but one, as promised by God.
The argument that Adam will die on the day when he eats the fruit did not mean the same, earth day, but a 1,000-year day is also a stretch since Adam's "earthly clock" didn't start ticking supposedly until he would have sinned, and the Bible says he died before he was 1,000 years old.
What Gen 2:17 says is that when Adam eats the fruit he will become mortal. That's all. Not dead in soul and body, not dead a millennium henceforth, just that he will be subject to death. Plain and simple.
When you jump into a circle, in effect stating 'before ex-nihilo', your perspective cannot come to any other conclusion than what you've built into it by starting from a false premise.
Prove your exegesis or admit you are on the same foundation that you are seeking to disabuse. You might draw a clue from what Jesus said regarding the young man who pled he had to wait to follow Jesus until his father died ...
God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I’ve known Him for a half century and counting.
On the second point, space, time and causality are part of the creation not properties of – or restrictions on – the Creator of them.
Indeed, any being coming into existence subsequent to the existence of space/time and physical causality could not be The Creator, Alpha, El Shaddai (God Almighty), I AM, YHwH (He IS) which is also translated to The Lord.
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
That no physical cosmology (big bang/inflationary model, cyclic, imaginary time, multi-verse, ekpyrotic, etc.) can explain the beginning of real time is considered the great weakness of them all. All such physical cosmologies presuppose space, time and physical causality even though we know space/time does not pre-exist and yet must exist before there can be physical causality.
The exercise in post 363 is as simple as I can make it and still illustrate that the beginning of space/time and therefore physical causality requires an uncaused cause.
On the third point, the Hebraism in Genesis 2:17, the repetition of the word means that Adam was cursed with more death than a simple “lights out” physical death.
And concerning the curse being “in the day” and Adam living over nine hundred years, I refer you back to my post 317. To the Jews, early Christians and to me, the repeated statement that a day to God is equal to a thousand years to man is not a vague reference. It is literal, as evidenced by the curse and how long Adam lived, and has to do with prophecy.
But Spiritual truth cannot be discerned by a natural man.